CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 367Problem and Project Based LearningInnovations in Medical EducationBiomedical and Engineering Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do we all mean the same thing by “problem-based learning”? A review of the concepts and a formulation of the ground rules

Maudsley, G·1999·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/00001888-199902000-00016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Problem-based learning (PBL) has emerged as a useful tool of epistemological reform in higher education, particularly in medical schools. Indeed, PBL has spent most of its career inducing revolutionary undergraduate medical reform. Nevertheless, obtaining informed agreement on the characteristics of the PBL "genus" is a challenge when the label is vulnerable to being borrowed for prestige or subversion. Many "PBL" single-subject courses within traditional curricula do not use PBL at all. Such semantic uncertainty compromises the evidence-base on the added value of problem-based versus traditional approaches and the main messages for good practice. This literature review explores what is meant by the term PBL by aiming to answer the following questions: What difficulties are inherent in the "problem-based" tag? What does the term "problem-based curriculum" imply? How has PBL been characterized and validated by focusing on its purpose? How else has PBL been characterized? How does PBL relate to problem solving? How does PBL relate to epistemological reform? In conclusion, what ground rules can be formulated for PBL? Despite much conceptual fog lingering over the PBL literature, useful ground rules can be formulated.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-199902000-00016

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 367

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Maudsley, G.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Maudsley, G
ORCID
Maudsley, G
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-02
Volume
74
Issue
2
Pages
178-85
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00001888-199902000-00016
OpenAlex
W2026944768
Cited by
367
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 18
FWCI
72.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biomedical and Engineering Education
Keywords
problem-based learning, problem-based curriculum, undergraduate medical education, problem solving, curriculum development, conceptual clarity, medical curriculum reform
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review